FlightAware has taken the FlightAware Kalshi flight cancellation dispute to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that prediction-market operator Kalshi used its data and trademark without permission to settle wagers on US flight cancellations.
The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction to prevent Kalshi from using FlightAware’s data and brand in connection with the markets. FlightAware also sent repeated cease-and-desist demands before filing, which the suit alleges Kalshi ignored, continuing to reference FlightAware on its website even after the objections were raised.
How the FlightAware Kalshi flight cancellation market was structured
The origins of the dispute lie in a filing Kalshi made with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in July 2026, disclosing plans for contracts tied to the percentage of flights cancelled at airports during specified periods. In that filing, Kalshi stated that FlightAware data would be used to determine contract outcomes, with US Department of Transportation data serving as a backup.
According to Gaming America, one contract in question poses a Yes/No question: will at least 50% of scheduled flights at JFK be cancelled on 21 October 2026? That binary structure is typical of Kalshi’s federally regulated markets, where users trade contracts based on whether a defined future event will occur.
RTX, FlightAware’s parent company, objected immediately after the CFTC filing, stating that FlightAware had no involvement with any prediction markets and that no company was authorised to use data collected through its network for that purpose. Kalshi initially paused the flight-cancellation contracts following those objections, but later launched the markets using FlightAware information, according to the lawsuit.
After FlightAware’s protests continued, Kalshi added a disclaimer stating that FlightAware was not affiliated with or endorsing the markets. The lawsuit treats that disclaimer as insufficient, given that Kalshi continued to name FlightAware in connection with the contracts.
Thin volume, large legal questions
Whatever the legal merits, the commercial scale of the disputed markets has so far been modest. According to CoinDesk, the flight-cancellation contracts have generated under $2,000 in total trading volume, suggesting the product has attracted little genuine market interest despite the legal attention it has drawn.
That context does not dissolve the questions the lawsuit raises. FlightAware argues that markets tied to flight cancellations could create financial incentives for actors to interfere with airline or airport operations in order to influence contract outcomes. The concern was raised publicly when Kalshi first proposed the contracts in July 2026, when critics questioned whether someone could deliberately cause disruption at an airport and then profit from the resulting cancellation bets.
Kalshi has expanded rapidly beyond its earlier focus on politics and economics into areas including sports, and its growth has drawn regulatory scrutiny at both federal and state level. While the CFTC oversees prediction markets at the federal level, several states have challenged Kalshi directly, arguing that certain of its contracts constitute gambling subject to state regulation rather than federal commodity-trading rules.
The flight-cancellation case adds data-rights and trade-mark claims to the existing debate about where prediction markets end and regulated gambling begins. For travel-industry operators, the lawsuit also flags a direct question about whether commercially sensitive operational data, such as real-time flight tracking, can be incorporated into financial instruments without the data owner’s consent.
FlightAware is seeking both the injunction and, presumably through further proceedings, damages for unauthorised use of its data and brand. The court has yet to rule on the request for a temporary restraining order.
